G. N. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the Plaintiff is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 15. 10. 73 passed by the civil Judge, Mandya, in R. A. No 81 of 1971 on his file allowing the appeal on reversing the Judgment and decree dated 19. 8. 71 passed by the Principal munsiff, Mandya, in O. ' S. No. 602 of 1969 on his file decreeing the suit of the Plaintiff as prayed for. ( 2 ) THE Plaintiff instituted a suit at O. S. No. 602 of 1969 on the file of the Principal Munsiff, Mandya, on the following averments: the first defendant Siddamma was the owner of the suit properties and she executed a gift deed dated 10. 8 59 in favour of Manchamma, wife of the plaintiff. Manchamma accepted the gift deed and took possession of the suit properties. Manchamma, however, died later and the Plaintiff has become the owner of the suit properties. After the death of Manchamma the plaintiff cultivated the suit lands for three years, according to him. But he was dispossessed of the suit properties in about the year 1965 by the defendants who have no right, title or interest in them. Thus the Plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration that he was the owner of the suit properties and for possession of the same from the defendants as also for mesne profits. ( 3 ) THE suit was resisted by the defendants. They contended that the suit properties originally belonged to Karigowda, husband of the first defendant. He died about 20 years prior to the filing of the written statement. The properties were inherited by his wife, the first defendant. The first defendant had 3 daughters namely, Lingamma (Deft. 2), sothamma (Deft. 3) and Manchamma, wife of the Plaintiff. Defendant-1 was the full owner of the properties. She was suffering from illness. The plaintiff induced defendant-1 to excute a nominal gift deed, in favour of his wife, Manchamme and hence the gift deed was nominally executed on 10. 8. 59. They asserted that the gift deed was not accepted by Manchamma and possession was not taken by her hence, they contended that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the suit properties. ( 4 ) THE trial court raised the following issues as arising from the pleadings :1. 8. 59. They asserted that the gift deed was not accepted by Manchamma and possession was not taken by her hence, they contended that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the suit properties. ( 4 ) THE trial court raised the following issues as arising from the pleadings :1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that his wife Manchamma became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties by virtue of the gift deed dated 10. 8. 59 and she was put in possession of the same? 2. If so, whether the Plaintiff has become the owner of the suit properties after the death of the said manchamma and he is entitled for possession of the same? 3. Whether the defendants prove that the gift deed dated 10. 8. 59 was only nominal and it was not acted upon? 4. To what relief, if any, are parties entitled? ( 5 ) THE trial court appreciating the evidence on record answered the material issues in favour of the plaintiff and, in that view, decreed the suit of the Plaintiff as prayed for. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, the defendants went up in appeal before the learned Civil Judge, mandya, who in the course of his judgment raised the following poin for his consideration:1. Whether the findings of the trial Court and the decision based thereon are erroneous and merit interference? ( 6 ) THE learned Civil Judge reassessing the evidence on record held that the gift was nominal, that it was not acted upon and that, therefore, the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the suit properties and, in that view, he allowed the appeal, reversed th judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the Plaintiff has come up with the above appeal before this Court. ( 7 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-Plaintiff strenuously urged before me that the learned civil Judge was not justified in holding that the gift was merely nominal and that it was not acted upon. He submitted that the learned civil Judge was not justified in holding that the gift was not accepted by Manchamma and that possession was not taken by her. Hence, he submitted that the appeal was entitled to succeed. He submitted that the learned civil Judge was not justified in holding that the gift was not accepted by Manchamma and that possession was not taken by her. Hence, he submitted that the appeal was entitled to succeed. As against that, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent defendants argued supporting the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge. ( 8 ) THE sole point that arises for my consideration in this appeal is whether the learned Civil Judge was justified in holding that the gift was merely nominal and that it was never acted upon?" ( 9 ) THE learned Civil Judge elaborating his reasong for holding that the gift was nominal, gives the following reasons:1. It is undisputed that the donee manchamma was minor at the time when the gift deed, Ex. P-1, was executed and no guardian was appointed for her for accepting the gift. 2. The document was in the custody of the donor. 3. There was no change of Khata in the Record of Rights and Sy. No. 153/2 was not sold. 4. Exhibits D-1 to D-6 show that khata stood in the name of Karigowda. 5. Extracts of 'pahani', Exs. D7 to D-12, indicate that Siddamma was in enjoyment of the properties, and 6. Ex. D-13 shows that water rates were paid by the defendants. It is on these grounds that the learned Civi] Judge held that the gift was merely nominal and not acted upon as against the finding of the learned Munsiff that the gift was re and was acted upon. ( 10 ) ADVERTING to the second ground, the learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the Plaintiff has clearly indicated in the plaint that the gift deed was lost. He further submitted that admittedly Manchamma, wife of the Plaintiff, went for delivery to the house of her mother Siddamma, defendant-1 and she died there. So, he submitted that the gift deed which was in the possession of Manchamma came into the custody of her mother and that is how she produced the gift deed. Hence he submitted that the fact tha't the gift deed subsequently came into the possession of the donor, would not establish that the gift was merely nominal. ( 11 ) IT cannot be said that the submission so made is without any substance. Hence he submitted that the fact tha't the gift deed subsequently came into the possession of the donor, would not establish that the gift was merely nominal. ( 11 ) IT cannot be said that the submission so made is without any substance. The evidence on record of siddamma herself shows that Manchamma went for delivery to siddamma's house and Manchamma died there. That being so, it is probable that Manchamma who possessed the document left the document in the house of Siddamma when she weat there for delivery and that is how the Plaintiff lost the document and siddamma came into possession of the document. Hence that circumstance cannot be of any avail to show that the gift was never intended to be acted upon. ( 12 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant further invited my attention to the fact that Siddamma had three daughters and she settled her properties on her three daughters and in the course of the settlement, siddamma gifted the suit properties in favour of Manchamma, her youngest daughter. Hence, he pointed out that it was the intention of siddamma when she gave the gift deed that she should confer the properties on her daughter Manchamma and there was absolutely no reason for her merely to create a nominal document. The submission so made is persuasive. Siddamma did settle the properties on her daughters. That being so, it is probable that she gifted away the suit properties in favour of manchamma, her youngest daughter there is no reason to believe why she should have created a mere nominal gift deed in favour of Manchamma. The learned Counsel further pointed out that dispute started only after the death of Manchamma. Siddamma wanted that present plaintiff should not remarry but, inspite of her protests, he remarried. Therefore ill-feelings developed and Siddamma came forward with the help of others to dispossess her son-in-law. The submission so made cannot be brushed aside as unfounded. There is substance in them. That is also the reason why siddamma started asserting that gift was only nominal. Siddamma wanted that present plaintiff should not remarry but, inspite of her protests, he remarried. Therefore ill-feelings developed and Siddamma came forward with the help of others to dispossess her son-in-law. The submission so made cannot be brushed aside as unfounded. There is substance in them. That is also the reason why siddamma started asserting that gift was only nominal. ( 13 ) ADVERTING next, to the observation of the learned Civil Judge that the gift was not accepted art all, it is true that Section 122 of the transfer of Property Act states, "gift" is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee. Thus it is obvious that the gift would never be complete unless the same is accepted by the donee. It may be recalled in this context that in India there was dispute among Hindus on the question of necessity of acceptance of a gift. There was divergent view. taken between the two schools of Hindu law namely Mistakshara and Dayabhaga. Dayabagha school held that it was not necessary to accept the gift whereas Mitakshara school of Hindu law propounded that it was necessary to accept the gift and the law was enacted in consonance with the mistakshara school. Under English law such acceptance is not necessary. In this perspective, the Courts in India have held that slight evidence of acceptance of gift is sufficient to prove acceptance unless the gift is onerous or unless there are special circumstances to decline acceptance of the gift. ( 14 ) THE Courts in India have held that there is nothing in the section to show that acceptance should be express pallayya v. . Ramavadhanulu (1 ). The acceptance may be inferred by circumstances such as possession of the gift deed with the donee, possession of the suit property, mutation entry in the register etc. ( 15 ) THE learned Civil Judge on the facts of the case has observed that it is undisputed that the donee was a minor. This came in for criticism by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The plaintiff has nowhere accepted or admitted that the donee was a minor. On the other hand, my attention was invited to the evidence of P. W. 2. This came in for criticism by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The plaintiff has nowhere accepted or admitted that the donee was a minor. On the other hand, my attention was invited to the evidence of P. W. 2. It is elicited in his. cross-examination. thus," Manchamma was of 18 years of age then," That being so it is obvious that Manchamma according to PW 2 was a major. This is not further challenged in his cross examination. Even DW 1 Siddamma who has given her evidence has not deposed that Manchamma was a minor at the time when the gift deed was executed. That being so, the observation of the learned Civil Judge that Manchamma was undisputedly a minor is unfounded and not wan anted, on the basis of the evidence. ( 16 ) ALL the witnesses of the Plaintiff have stated that Manchamma was present at the time of registration of the gift deed. Thus learned counsel for appellant submitted that Manchamma knew about the gift deed. That itself, he submitted, was sufficient to hold that Manchamma accepied the gift. There is a well known saying in Sanskrit which states: "silence indicates consent" the High Court of Kerala has ruled that even silence on the partt of the donee is sufficient to infer that she accepted the gift the evidence required on that aspect being slight. In the case of Narayani v. Lehto (2) it is observed thus:"there may be cases where slightest evidence of such acceptance would be sufficient. There may be still cases where the circumstances themselves eloquently speak to such acceptance. Normally, when a person gifts properties to another and it is not an onerous gift, one may expect the other to accept such a gift when once it comes to his knowledge since normally, any person would be only too willing to promote his own interests. May be in particular cases there may be peculiar circumsances which may show that the donee would not have accepted the gift. But these are rather the exceptions than the rule. It is only normal to assume that the donee would have accepted the gift deed. Mere silence may some times be indicative of acceptance provided it is shown that the donee knew about the gift". But these are rather the exceptions than the rule. It is only normal to assume that the donee would have accepted the gift deed. Mere silence may some times be indicative of acceptance provided it is shown that the donee knew about the gift". Since in this case the evidence on record shows that the donee knew about the gift being present at the time of registration of the gift deed and she did not object to it, it can safely be inferred that she accepted the gift. ( 17 ) MOREOVER , in Ex. P-1 it is stated x x x x which means, 'i have delivered possesion of the schedule properties to you this day only'. Thus here is an admission of the donor defendant No. 1 in the gift deed itself that properties are delivered to the donee on the same day. The admission binds the donor. It is true, however, thart an admission though decisive is not conclusive in the matter. It is open to the person who made the admission to explain away his admission. In the instant case, though Siddamma has entered the box, she has not whispered a word against the admission. It is in this context that we have to read the evidence of the Plaintiff that he was cultivating the lands along with his wife Manchamma after the gift and subsequently he was dispossessed. That appears to be probable. The circumstances that subsequently manchamma died and the present plaintiff re-married against the wishes of Siddamma and the dispute started thereafter, render probable and lend assurance to the version" of the plaintiff. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the suit properties were delivered to Manchamma pursuant to the gift deed and that thereafter, the Plaintiff was dispossessed after the death of his wife Manchamma. ( 18 ) THE learned Civil Judge has observed that Khata was not changed as a result of the gift deed. That is not correct. As a matter of fact, Ex. P-3 the mutation entry shows that subsequent to the gift deed, Khata was changed, in the name of Manchamma. Henpe, there is no truth in the observation of the learned Civil judge that khata was not changed. That is not correct. As a matter of fact, Ex. P-3 the mutation entry shows that subsequent to the gift deed, Khata was changed, in the name of Manchamma. Henpe, there is no truth in the observation of the learned Civil judge that khata was not changed. If really Siddamma had no intention of gifting away the properties and if it were really her intention to treat it as nominal, she would hare objected to the change of Khata in the name of Manchamma. She has not done so. That further shows that manchamma accepted the gift and it was never the intention of Siddamma to treat the gift as nominal. ( 19 ) ADVERTING to the payment of assessment and water taxes, it may be stated that that would not be of much significance on the facts of this case. The reasons are not far to seek. Firstly, the evidence shows that manchamma and her husband as also other daughters of Siddamma and their husbands were staying with Siddamma herself. Therefore, Siddamma being the mother, might be paying the tax and might derive some income also from the lands of her daughters. Hence, these circumstances by themselves, on the peculiar facts of the case, would not loom large. It may further be pointed out that not much importance could be attached to the entries in the Record of Rights in this case because the name of Karigowda who died long ago still continues to appear in the record of rights and there is no change of entry even in favour of Siddamma not to speak of Manchamma. In the circumstances therefore, I am unable to bring myself to agree with the finding of the learned Civil Judge that the gift was merely nominal and that it was, never accepted and acted upon. On the other hand, for the reasons discussed above, I hold tha\t the gift was real, it was intended to be real, possession of the suit properties was delivered to Manchamma pursuant to the gift and that it was only after the death of Manchamma when the Plaintiff, son-in-law of Siddamma, in spite of protests by Siddamma, remarried, that the dispute started and the Plaintiff was dispossessed. IP the circumstances, therefore the present appeal is entitled to succeed. ( 20 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. IP the circumstances, therefore the present appeal is entitled to succeed. ( 20 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge are set aside and those of the learned Munsiff are sustained and upheld. The suit of the Plaintiff is decreed as prayed for. No costs of this appeal --- *** --- .